Abstract
More and more frequently, the organisation of design fits into a project organisation where different designers have to cooperate with flexibility and reactivity. In order to help these cooperative design processes, we have to respond to new types of needs: a relatively unformalised coordination that requires permanent mutual adjustment, the fact that members of the team are geographically distant, the difficulty of building a shared reference via design documents and technical and organisational decisions that structure the project. In order to provide computer support for these needs, asynchronous Group Ware is often recommended. However, the efficiency of these tools depends on the models that structure the work processes and the knowledge exchanged. In this paper, we present ABRICo, a new Design Rationale formalism that permits the recording of cooperative decision-making processes in complex design situations. We describe the formalism and explain how we intend to use it to specify cooperative design tools usable via an Intranet for computing projects.
This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.
Similar content being viewed by others
References
Argyris, C. and Schön, D.A. (1978). Organizational Learning: A Theory of Action Perspective. Addison-Wesley, Reading, MA.
Bannon, L.J., Schmidt, K. (1991). CSCW: Four Characters in Search of a Context. Studies in CSCW: Theory, Practices and Design. North-Holland, Amsterdam, 3–16.
Ellis, C.A., Gibbs, S. J., Rein, G. (1991). Group Ware: Some Issues and Experiences,Communications of the ACM.34(1). 38–58.
Giard, V. and Midler, C. (1996). Management et Gestion de Projet: Bilan et Perspectives. http://panoramix.univ-paris1.fr/GREGOR/96-11.html.
Grudin, J. (1996). Evaluating Opportunities for Design Capture. In Moran, T.P. and Carroll J.M. (eds)Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. 453–470.
Hatchuel A. 1994. Apprentissage collectif et activités de conception,Revue Française de Gestion. Juin-Juillet-Août. 109–120.
Hoc, J.M. (ed.). (1988). Cognitive Psychology of Planning (Computers and People). Academic Press, London, 150–156.
Karsenty, L. (1996). An Empirical Evaluation of Design Rationale Documents. InCHI'96, 13–18 April 1996.
Lee, J. and Lai, K.Y. (1996). What's in Design Rationale. In Moran, T.P. and Carroll J.M. (eds)Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ, 21–51.
Levitt, B. and March, J.G. (1988). Organizational Learning,Annual Review of Sociology.14. 319–340.
MacLean, A., Young, R.M. and Moran, T.P. (1989). Design Rationale: The Argument Beyond the Artefact. InProceedings of CHI'89, Austin TX, 30 April–4 May 1989. ACM Press, New York.
MacLean, A., Young, R.M., Bellotti, V.M.E. and Moran, P. (1996). Questions, Options and Criteria: Elements of Design Space Analysis. In Moran, T.H.P. and Carroll, J.M. (eds)Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. 53–105.
Midler, C. (1996), L'auto qui n'existait pas, management des projets et transformation de l'entreprise. InterEditions, Paris.
Moran, T.H.P. and Carroll J.M. (1996). Design Rationale Overview. In Moran, T.H.P. and Carroll, J.M. (eds)Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. 1–19.
Nonaka, I. (1994). A Dynamic Theory of Organizational Knowledge Creation,Organization Science.5(1). 14–37.
Palmer, J. and Fields, N. (1994). Guest Editors' Introduction: Computer-Supported Cooperative Work,IEEE Computer.27(5). 15–18.
Schmidt, K. (1994). The Organization of Cooperative Work: Beyond the ‘Leviathan’ Conception of the Organization of Cooperative Work. InProceedings of CSCW'94, 22–26 October 1994, Chapel Hill, NC. ACM, New York, 101–112.
Schum, S.B. (1996). Analysing the Usability of a Design Rationale Notation. In Moran, T.H.P. and Carroll, J.M. (eds)Design Rationale: Concepts, Techniques and Use. Erlbaum, Hillsdale, NJ. 185–215.
Schum, S.B., MacLean, A., Bellotti, V., Hammond, N. (1996). Graphical Argumentation and Design Cognition. Technical Report KMI-TR-25, Knowledge Media Institute, Open University, UK.
Yakemovic, K.C.B. and Conklin E.J. (1993). Report on Development Project Use of an Issue-Based Information System. InReadings in Groupware and CSCW. Morgan Kaufmann, San Mateo, CA, 566–579.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Rights and permissions
About this article
Cite this article
Lewkowicz, M., Zacklad, M. Rationalisation of decision-making processes in design teams with a new formalism of design rationale. AI & Soc 15, 396–408 (2001). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01206118
Issue Date:
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF01206118